Pope Francis and the drama of sodomy in the Church and in the Diocese of Rome The explosive report by La7 network

The affirmation by Pope Francis that there is a gay lobby in the Vatican, should not be reduced to an extemporaneous quip, but evaluated and weighed in all of its tragic consequences. There are truly some saintly people in the Curia, but there is also a current of corruption. There is talk of a gay lobby , and it is true, it exists. We have to see what we can do about it.

The Holy Father pronounced these words during a private audience with the leaders of the Confederation of Latin American Religious (CLAR) which took place in Rome on the 6th of June 2013. It was a private meeting, and the interlocutor was an authoritative body, which [afterwards] drew up a written report of the Pontiffs conversation. This text was not destined for publication, but it is authentic, demonstrated by the fact that it went all round the world without any refutation from the Holy See.

The Pope did not refer to the Church in general, but to the Vatican, which is graver, because this is where he lives, surrounded by his closest collaborators. And it is exactly inside the Leonine City he affirms that a lobby exists, that is, a powerful and organized group, able to do all that a lobby normally does: exercise, in a licit or illicit manner, heavy pressure by directing some decisions in their own favour. The interests of a  gay lobby would be, in this case, that of promoting men who share the practice or ideology of homosexuality inside the Vatican institutions, and of avoiding the condemnation of this vice as it is [condemned] by the public conscience of the Church.

Ernesto Galli della Loggia, in an article published in the Corriere della Sera of the 23rd of June, wrote I ask myself what would have happened if this expression  'gay lobby'  had been adopted by Pope Ratzinger instead of Pope Francis, or more modestly, by a representative of the most acclaimed male chauvinism such as Silvio Berlusconi ( ). You do not need much to imagine [the reactions]: accusations from all parts about language blatantly homophobic, heated protests about the denigrating and persecutory intentions implied in such an expression, complaints from all the homosexual associations, ( ) and so forth. As in fact happened punctually in the past every time someone used similar words, and this someone for whatever reason was hated by that political part which identifies itself (no ifs and buts about it) with the cause of homosexual civil rights. But this time the expression 'gay lobby' was used by a person like Pope Francis, who has earned the universal reputation of being 'simple and good', to strike a group of powerful prelates, who have earned  let us be clear, for reasons more than justly deserved  the same universal reputation as the 'baddies'. I add simplifying quite brutally: because this time the words in question were intended to strike at a part that is generally considered corrupt and reactionary by definition, (in the first place, from the homosexual movement itself and its exponents). And thus [the term] 'gay lobby' can be used.

It could also be asked why the same mass-media which speaks of moral complicity when a bishop intervenes in a very weak way towards a pedophile priest (see example : Francesco Merlo, That Slap to Cardinal OBrien, in La Repubblica, 17th May 2013) [but] they are ready to attack him with homophobe, if he should intervene in a firm manner with a homosexual priest. Why is pedophilia a crime and homosexuality a right? The answer is simple. For the pseudo-relativist culture, that which renders pedophilia a crime is not its moral disorder, but the fact that the acts against nature are done harming minors. The reference is not to the moral law, but to the unlimited self-determination of the individual.

Pedophilia violates the rights of minors, while homosexuality affirms those of adults. Pedophile priests and homosexual priests in reality, appear to form the same lobby that is why they drink from the same libertarian, pansexual ideology, which has also penetrated inside the Church over the last fifty years.

The homo-heresy, namely, the theology of homosexuality, denounced by Father Dario Oko (With the Pope against Homoheresy), goes hand in hand with the theology of married priests. In both cases the enemy is the ecclesiastic celibate, a moral pillar which the Church has held on to since Her origins. Anyway, if the Pope expressed himself in these terms, he did so for obvious reasons. Some, such as the vaticanist Ignazio Ingrao, sustain that an entire chapter dedicated to the gay network is present in the relatio reported by the three cardinals charged by Benedict XVI to investigate the Curia: Julian Herranz, Salvatore De Giorgi and Jozef Tomko (Panorama, 24th June 2013). There are those who hypothesize that it was exactly the discovery of the presence of this network that would have pushed the abdication of Pope Benedict, by then intent in renouncing the Papacy. (Il Fatto 11th June 2013). There are also those who think that the words of the Pope would not be extraneous to the news that reached him about the events of Almo Collegio Capranica, denounced on the site Corrispondenza Romana in the article The Drama of Sodomy in the diocese of Rome which was promptly obscured by the Roman Tribunal. Behind that law-suit was the Rector of the Almo Collegio.

During the news on La7 on the 25th June (http://tg.la7.it/cronaca/video-i722957) we learned of an inquiry in course by the Roman Magistrates concerning a head-spinning ring of sexual encounters hosted by religious with minors. The denunciation which triggered off the investigation would contain around twenty names, among which is a papal master of ceremonies, a secretary to the Cardinal Vicar, four parish priests in charge of as many parishes to the north and west of Rome and other personalities of a high ecclesiastical level.

The behavior of certain ecclesiastical authorities confronted with scandals of this sort is astounding. When they learn of the existence of an immoral situation in a parish, in a college, in a seminary, they do not proceed to verify the truth, remove the guilty party and eliminate the filth, but manifest annoyance, if not reprobation towards those that have denounced the evil, and, in the best of cases, they limit themselves by taking into consideration that which may interest civil justice, for fear of being involved in judicial matters. They are silent about that which has purely a moral and canonical significance. The slogan could be  zero tolerance for the pedophiles, maximum tolerance  for homosexuals. The latter continue unperturbedly to occupy their places as parish priests, bishops, rectors of Colleges, forming that homo-mafia which Pope Francis defines as the gay lobby.

The Popes affirmation goes beyond the grave denunciation of the  filth in the Church made by Cardinal Ratzinger on Good Friday 2005, on the eve of his election to the Papacy. Also in that case the future Benedict XVI was certainly referring to the moral plague which, under the form of pedophilia, ephebophilia or more simply homosexuality was spreading throughout the Church. But the significance of Francis declaration is wider and reaches the one of Paul VI who in his homily of 29th June 1972, stated that from some crack, the smoke of Satan had entered the Temple of God. What is happening is exactly the consequence of that smoke of Satan which today is covering and suffocating the Church. Will Pope Francis intervene? This is the heartfelt plea of all those who are praying and battling for an authentic doctrinal and moral reform of the Mystical Body of Christ.

I’m a Catholic, and for several years I attended a Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish where our pastor was married and a father and a grandfather.

But relaxing the discipline on the celibate priesthood in the Latin Rite Church will do nothing whatsoever to address the fact that the Latin Rite admitted homosexuals into the priesthood, and those homosexuals did what homosexuals want to do, i.e., chicken-hawking.

The two issues simply are not related. We can expel gay priests from the priesthood, and keep them from becoming priests, any time the Church has the guts and the backbone to do what’s right.

We don’t need to do anything about the celibate priest status quo to fix this problem whatsoever. We just need to be Catholic again, and return to our former discipline of weeding out any and all homosexuals from the priesthood.

The attempt to normalize buggery is indeed abominable. But opposing it is not well served by embracing absurd positions like:

The homo-heresy, namely, the theology of homosexuality, denounced by Father Dario Oko (With the Pope against Homoheresy), goes hand in hand with the theology of married priests.

Really?? Equating the overthrow of traditional sexual morality with the normal practice of the Church outside the Patriarchate of Rome from Apostolic times down to the present? If married priests are equated with normalizing buggery by anyone with actual authority in the Latin church, I suppose we Orthodox could expect the Uniates to return en masse.

23
posted on 06/27/2013 4:04:21 PM PDT
by The_Reader_David
(And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)

Episcopalian priests are allowed to marry...and the Episcopal church is stuffed to the brim with homosexuals and always has been. And now the Episcopalian gay clergy can “marry” each other, which they have already been doing in the US and in the Anglican churches in the UK.

Vatican II, had to do with the encouragement of the 1960’s. It was just the open acknowledgement, of Rome’s prior real direction of faith. There is no faking the obvious history of staggering papal abuse of the Faithful, by political corruption at the highest points of contact/contract. There is a good reason, you know some who were driven, to not attend.

The homo-heresy, namely, the theology of homosexuality, denounced by Father Dario Oko (With the Pope against Homoheresy), goes hand in hand with the theology of married priests.

Really??

No. I missed that in the original post, thanks for pointing it out.

The author of that piece is a trad Catholic and has made an error of either phrasing or judgment.

In the Latin Church at present, the vast majority of those militating for a married priesthood tend to be heterodox and liberal (and therefore soft on homosexuality) while those defending the celibate priesthood tend to be conservative/orthodox or traditional.

Therefore Trads tend to lump anyone who supports a married priesthood together with those who are soft on homosexuality.

This is an internal debate. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Eastern Orthodox and their reasons for a married priesthood.

Im a Catholic, and for several years I attended a Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish where our pastor was married and a father and a grandfather. But relaxing the discipline on the celibate priesthood in the Latin Rite Church will do nothing whatsoever to address the fact that the Latin Rite admitted homosexuals into the priesthood, and those homosexuals did what homosexuals want to do, i.e., chicken-hawking.

You bring up an interesting point that I had never considered. Are you saying that the abuse problem was for the most part contained within the Latin Rite churches?

No, there have been cases among Byzantine Catholics as well as Eastern Orthodox, both of which permit married priests. A married priesthood does not insulate a church from homosexual predators. Mainstream protestant churches have just as big a problem, even though the MSM would have us believe otherwise by their biased reporting of stats and facts. Of course, the abuse rates in any religious denomination is eclipsed by the rates among public school teachers (who last I checked were allowed to marry) but no one is talking about that.

On an interesting side note, I once had a patient who still had her original contract as a teacher from the early 1920s. It forbid teachers to date or marry. The contract changed in 1923 or so. How times have changed.

No, there have been cases among Byzantine Catholics as well as Eastern Orthodox, both of which permit married priests. A married priesthood does not insulate a church from homosexual predators.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of the married vs celibate priesthood issue. Rather, I had thought you were saying that sexual abuse was a Latin Rite issue. Thinking there might be something there, I thus wondered whether there was some larger cultural, historical, or theological distinctive within the Latin Rite (e.g. a preference for Italian popes) that rendered them more susceptible to abuse within their ranks.

If the numbers are the same across the Rites, then my reading of your post and ensuing assumptions were false.

I’ve always been brutally honest about this subject in all my posts on this forum. No one wants this curse to end more than those of us who are uncompromising and unapologetic Catholics, and it serves no purpose to try to hide or downplay the reality of this situation.

In my diocese the only thing that got rid of the homosexual abusive priests was media exposure of the problem. And I made damn sure the local media got on the story, and got their facts straight.

No, I’m a Texas Catholic with several firearms, guess that makes me a “soldier of the cross”. I’ve been a student of the Bible since I was a young child. Man made church rules that differ from the Bible, don’t mean much to me. I’m really a member of Christ’s heavenly church, not so much an earthly church.

39
posted on 06/27/2013 4:44:25 PM PDT
by Marcella
(Prepping can save your life today. I am a Christian, not a Muslim.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.